Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
As much as I like Conner and Samuels I think the Steelers would love to still have LeVeon especially if AB is traded. I don't see it happening because I think Bell is going to get a multi-year deal though I think it will be less than the Steelers offer last year.
Guy cost himself $15mm last year and will now prob take a deal less than if he had played this season well.
I'm not arguing one way or the other for bell but the counterpoint is
This strikes me as the same arguments rehashed over and over again for like 100 pages now. When the counterpoint is that there have been very few to no stud runningbacks before the last 2~3 years getting drafted, therefore very few good/stud RBs getting 2nd contracts. Gurley & DJ finally got theirs. Zeke, Gordon and Bell will probably get theirs soon. In 2~3 years will be seeing guys like Mixon, Cook, Kamara, McCaffrey, Conner, etc. resetting the market.
Basically your "evidence" about resigning RB's was pointless. The list of runningbacks on their second contract is small because there has been a dearth of talent at the position for a good long while. To make your point, you used guys that got injured for the entire year, non-bell cow 3rd down backs, and one guy who totally contradicts your assertion in McCoy to say that signing RB's to 2nd contracts is a bad proposition.
Sure it does if I have this correct. They transition him. If he doesn't sign he doesn't play. What do they care if he plays or not? They can screw him over by applying this tag. They can actually tag him for less than last year.
There's going to be some major restructuring of the CBA next time it comes around. There's good faith, and there's playing by really skewed rules. Whoever posted that thread about the work stoppage wasn't being hyperbolic.
I presented no evidence of anything. I pointed out that RB's on the second contract are not performing well. You interepret that how you wish but I'm making no claims to anything. What you can't say, is that what I presented was false. You can jump from fact they did not perform well to making excuses for the underperformance of RB's on that second contract. Like I said earlier, ok. But I find it funny that all I did was list RB's that have not performed well on second big contract, which last year was basically all of them, and you are quick to take that as evidence of me trying to build some kind of case. Absurd. It's an observation, an observation I expect most NFL FO's to make as well.
It doesn't make sense for the Steelers (IMO) because if they transition tag him and he signs with another team the Steelers have 2 options: match the offer or dont match the offer. If they don't match the offer they get nothing for him. If they just let him walk as an FA they would at least get a comp pick in 2020 (depending on other FA signing). Letting him walk and being done with the L. Bell saga seems best to me.
You do not have it correct. The transition tag is for $14.5M, but if Pitt were to be stupid enough to try this, they’d argue that it should be $9.5. It’d be challenged through arbitration. In any event, Bell is free to negotiate with other teams, and if/when he signs an offer, Pitt would get the chance to match the offer. If Pitt matched, they can’t trade Bell to that team. If Pitt doesn’t match the offer, Bell goes to the new team, and Pitt gets no compensation, no pick from the other team, no comp pick, nothing.
Give me a break. He was the highest paid RB by far in 2017 and had he signed his tender last year would have been the highest paid in 2018. He was also offered long term contracts both years with guaranteed money which he declined. That's fine, the deals weren't to his liking, but you make it sound like he was being asked to play for peanuts.
I thought it was clear that what I was posting was the way Bell would feel about helping the Steelers out, i.e.-because he felt they hadn't been fair with him, that he wouldn't be inclined to help them out. I will go back and edit my post to make that more clear.
If you look into this, the only 'logical' outcome is the Steelers let Bell walk and get a compensatory draft pick.
Ok fair enough.
Agreed. Best case for Steelers, IMO, is for them to let him go and get the 3rd-round comp pick (then make it work with AB, so they can use the extra $14.5M they rolled over from Bell not playing in '18 to boost their D).
Agreed. They had the option to keep him "no matter what it costs" last year by given Bell the contract he wanted. That's why it seems very illogical to me that the Steelers would assign the transition tag to Bell. Just walk away and get the comp pick in 2020.Godsbrother said:
Say the Steelers actually sign a significant FA this offseason - like ILB CJ Mosley. They tried to sign Hightower in 2017.
You are right, and I almost said "potential comp pic" in my previous post, but that's the nature of comp pics.
This is an excellent point though I think assigning the transition tag on Bell would mean that money counts against the cap which might prevent the Steelers from making any offers to significant FAs anyway.
This is correct; just like Pitt had to have $14.5M free in 2018 for Bell if he chose to sign the franchise tag, they’d have to keep $14.5M free in 2019 in case he chooses to sign the transition tag. That would make it harder to sign big FA’s.
Agreed, but for some reason, it continues to be a talking point. But, I'm not sure how this is "messing with Bell." The transition tag price will be $14.5M (although, IF this were to happen, Pitt would argue that it should be $9.5M; the NFLPA would challenge that, and Pitt would likely lose in arbitration), and it allows Bell to solicit offers from other teams. This would be the best case for Bell; he gets to be a FA and try to get the highest offer, but has a guaranteed $14.5M to come back to if he doesn't get an offer that is worth more than that.
This doesn’t get discussed enough. Le’Veon balked at a year 6 salary that was about equal to his combined payment years 1 through 5. And now, teams can low ball him because what’s he gonna do, hold out year 7?
What is the "long-term benefit?" That if a player signs with Pitt, the team will gladly employ them while they are underpaid, then use every tool at their disposal to squeeze every last drop of value out of the player, and the player be damned?
I’d say the Steelers missed 10% of their cap more than they missed Le’Veon. If they had Bell, better chance they make playoffs. If they had 10% more cap to put into defense, better chance they make playoffs.
The Steelers didn't low ball Bell, they just couldn't agree on a contract. Are you saying the Steelers should have given Bell 17M per year like he wanted?
Apparently there are some people that think if you don't meet the demands of the player then the team is screwing him. The truth is that both sides were negotiating and couldn't come to an agreement. There was no bad guy in this situation and really both parties were hurt by the fact that they didn't work out a deal.
The Steelers must decide by March 5 whether to apply the franchise or transition tag to Bell.
As Godsbrother mentioned the deadline is March 5, but the process opens up a week from today. 2/19-3/5 is when teams can transition/franchise tag players.
That's also a way to look at it, and a fair point. But Hunt's salary is nothing, and I think that factors into it. I'm not saying this means somebody is going to break the bank for Bell, it just means that he has one more theoretical suitor given the assumption somebody would have signed Hunt.
